Standing Committee B

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Clause 7 - Co-operation to improve well-being

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 210, in
clause 7, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
 '(3A) In making arrangements under subsection (3) a children's services authority shall (where parents each have responsibility for a child but are separated) have regard to the rights and wishes of both parents.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
 Amendment No. 221, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority shall, where persons with parental responsibility of a child are separated, take all reasonable steps to facilitate the implementation of any court order relating to access or in the absence of such an order the child's access to each parent.'. 
Amendment No. 222, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert— 
 '(l) the judiciary and magistracy (subject to the provisions of section [Judicial responsibility for children's welfare]).'. 
New clause 42—Presumption of equal parenting— 
 '(1) The Children Act 1989 (c.41) is amended as follows: 
 (2) After section 1(1) after ''the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration'', add— 
 ''(1A) In respect of subsection (1)(a) above the court shall, unless a contrary reason be shown, act on the presumption that a child's welfare is best served through residence with its parents and if its parents are not living together, through residence with one of them and through both of them being as fully and equally involved in his parenting as possible.''.'. 
New clause 44—Judicial responsibility for child welfare— 
 '(1) In all proceedings affecting access to children, the courts shall have regard to the desirability of a child having appropriate access to parents, siblings and grandparents. 
 (2) Nothing in this section shall affect— 
 (a) a court's power to impose a custodial sentence where appropriate; or 
 (b) the Home Secretary's power to deport an alien.'.

Andrew Turner: As the sun peeps through the steely south London sky, it is a great pleasure to welcome you once again to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I intend to gallop through these amendments, but if I leave anything to the imagination, I am happy to take interventions.
 Amendment No. 210 would ensure that when parents separated, children's services authorities would take account of the wishes of both parents in relation to any decisions taken about the children. I 
 shall give two examples of how that would have made my life, and those of some of my constituents, easier in recent months. 
 The first example relates to school choice. There is no guidance to local authorities about whose choice of the child's schooling they should take account of when parents are separated. In my constituency, there was a family whose parents did not live too far apart, and the child shared access to both parents. One school was conveniently situated between their homes and another was well away to one side of the home of one parent and so much less convenient for the other parent. If the child had been educated at the second school, it would have been more difficult for them to have access to the second parent. 
 The form for the parent to indicate a choice of school went home with the child when they were staying with the first parent, who chose the school further away from the home of the second parent. That made it difficult for the second parent to be involved in the schooling of the child to the extent that they would have wished. The local authority could say only that, because it got the form from the first parent, it could not take account of the choice of the second parent, because only one choice could be exercised for each child. I would like to amend the clause to require public authorities to take account of the wishes of both parents in such circumstances. 
 The second example is of a child living hundreds of miles away from my constituency with a parent who is separated from her spouse. In that case, the second parent is unable to obtain information about the child's schooling, because the school has been told that he has no parental rights—it has not inquired of him whether he has any parental rights—and it has refused, for example, to pass on letters from the second parent to the child, and to pass on reports to the second parent. 
 I see the Minister of State shaking her head as if to say that those things should not happen. I accept that they should not, but sadly they do. It may be unnecessary to amend the Bill in the way that I propose to take account of the second case, but it is helpful to underline the issues. On the first example, there must be an explicit requirement for the local authority to take account of the wishes not only of the parent who happens to reply first, but of both parents. 
 Amendment No. 221 would place a similar requirement on children's services authorities in respect of parents having access. The placing by one parent of impediments to the other parent's access to the child is one of the gravest concerns surrounding separation. The amendment would require a children's services authority to 
''take all reasonable steps to facilitate the implementation of any court order . . . or in the absence of such an order the child's access to each parent.'' 
Of course, that would apply not where parental access and responsibility had been denied by the court but where it had been permitted. 
 Amendment No. 222 would require the judiciary to have regard to the needs of children. It includes the judiciary in the bodies with responsibility for making 
 arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That relates in particular to my new clause 44, which simply says that the courts should have regard to the desirability of a child having appropriate access not only to parents but to siblings and grandparents. I say ''appropriate'' access because clearly the extent of access to siblings and, in particular, grandparents may be less than that which is appropriate for parents. None the less, it is now recognised as important that children should have access to their grandparents where that is reasonably practicable. 
 I tabled the new clause because in recent adoption proceedings the interests of the child who was up for adoption were, rightly, paramount, but the courts appeared to have no regard to the needs of his sister, who remained with the original family. I have read the judgment—which I understand I should not have done—and it is clear that it did not refer to the needs of the sibling. That is wrong and something that we should take account of in the Bill. 
 New clause 42, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), would establish 
''the presumption that a child's welfare is best served through residence with its parents'' 
and the presumption—it is a presumption only, but it is a starting point—that a child should have equal access to each parent. That is not unreasonable. The new clause does not in any way insist that a child be divided between each parent, but it says that a child's interests are well served if he has access to both parents.

Margaret Hodge: We are coming to the nub of a very important issue. Which principle does the hon. Gentleman believe should have paramountcy? I ask because we cannot have two paramount principles. Should the paramount principle be the interests of the child or the rights of parents to equal time with each child?

Andrew Turner: New clause 42 is clear about that. It states:
 ''In respect of subsection (1)(a) . . . the court shall, unless a contrary reason be shown, act on the presumption that a child's welfare is best served through residence with its parents''.

Margaret Hodge: We cannot have two paramount principles: one must be more important than the other. Clearly, there will be sub-interests, but I am simply trying to establish with the hon. Gentleman, as I shall with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, which principle is paramount: the interests of the child or the rights of parents to access. It is important that the public be clear about what the Conservative party is saying.

Andrew Turner: The new clause says nothing about the rights of the parents to access. It speaks of the child's right to have access to its parents, which is an entirely different position from that proposed by the right hon. Lady. However, I will answer her question. The need
 of the child is paramount, not the need of any parent. Too many children are deprived of access to one of their parents, and the courts should therefore take account of the natural need of children generally to have access to, and residence with, each parent. There is no doubt about which is paramount, but the presumption should be that there is equality of access by the child to each parent.

Margaret Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in more than 99 per cent. of cases that go to court an order for contact with both parents is made? In those circumstances, how can he allege that the courts are not working in a way that assumes that the interests of the child are best met by maintaining contact with both parents?

Andrew Turner: I make no allegation against the courts at the point of issuing contact and access orders, but I do in respect of the enforcement of those orders.

Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Gentleman says that the paramount consideration must be the interests of the child and then goes on to accept that in most cases it is in the child's interests to maintain contact with both parents—which is why in over 99 per cent. of cases the courts decide to grant access—what does he suggest we do to ensure that parents comply with the court order above and beyond what is currently in law and what we suggest in our Green Paper?

Andrew Turner: I do not propose to stray into the Government's consultative document on access. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wishes to cover that matter he will do so.
 First, in the 99 per cent. of cases that the right hon. Lady mentioned the presumption is not of equal access, but simply of access. Secondly, there is the other 1 per cent. In far too many cases children appear to be losing access to one or other of their parents, despite court orders. Establishing the presumption of equal access as a starting point on the basis of which the court should take decisions would signal that both parents have a role in the upbringing of a child which, in the absence of other evidence, should be reasonably equal. It should not be a question of one parent having 13 and a half days a fortnight and another parent having half a day in McDonald's if it is raining, or in the park if it is not.

Tim Loughton: I will not wax lyrical about the state of the weather this morning, Mr. Benton, or try to make out that I went to the same school as you, which seems to be the way that we start our sittings at the moment. Let us get straight to the meat of the business. This is an important issue, as the Minister has acknowledged. It will get a much greater airing outside this Room, and it needs an airing on the Floor of the House. We will endeavour to give it that attention on Report because many hon. Members have an interest in the subject.
 We tabled new clause 42, which has many features in common with the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), because we wanted to put it on the record that the law 
 needed to be changed in that way, as we signalled on Second Reading. We have already committed ourselves to certain undertakings as election pledges, on which we will elaborate later.

Margaret Hodge: I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to move on to other matters but, as he says, the issue is of huge importance to all our constituents. Does he accept, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did, that the interests of the child are paramount, and that there cannot, in law, be two paramount principles? Does he believe that the paramount principle should be co-parenting, 50:50 parenting or shared parenting? I am slightly confused as to what the Opposition are suggesting. What is the paramount principle and, if the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is the interests of the child, what is wrong with the current law?

Tim Loughton: The Minister pre-empts me by parroting her single line about the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. We all subscribe to that principle, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989, and we do not suggest that it should be overturned.
 The Minister is being completely disingenuous in trying to make out that the paramountcy of the child's welfare and maximising accessibility to both parents are in some way mutually exclusive. It is in the best interests of the welfare of the child that it has as much contact time as possible with both parents. That is the principle at stake. Trying to distil the matter into a war of words helps no one. It certainly does not help the 60 per cent. of fathers who have split up from their partners and lost contact with their children within two years of those proceedings. Nor does it help the 150,000 children who are affected by divorce each year. 
 When a child has lost permanent contact with one parent because the parents no longer live together, we do not want them to lose contact with the non-resident parent as well, as is happening in the majority of cases. That is the point that we are trying to make, and the Minister's comments do not help the situation. 
 The Green Paper turfed out all the recommendations that, as the Minister knows, had been approved by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and had the backing of most of the equal parenting bodies in the UK. When they reached her Department, those recommendations were mysteriously overturned in favour of a complete fudge. The Minister should accept that the presumption that all separated parents have a right to substantial parenting time with their children should be enshrined in law.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: In a moment. Currently, the law does not entitle a perfectly fit parent to any time whatever with their child. Meanwhile, the other parent has all the time that they want with the child, because possession is nine-tenths of the law. That parent is permitted to maintain total control over parenting, and they can use that control to block the access of the other parent and the grandparents, thereby starving
 the children of the oxygen of contact that they so badly need. [Interruption.] I am afraid that, whether the Minister likes it or not, that happens in too many cases.
 Too many court proceedings and court orders are completely flouted. Non-custodial parents are required to prove that it would be in the best interests of their child for them to be granted contact. Unless there are overriding circumstances that mitigate against access, such as a history of violence or harm, it should be assumed that, as a parent, they have rights of access to that child if it helps the child's welfare, as in most circumstances it would. The two considerations are not mutually exclusive, as the Minister tries to make out.

Margaret Hodge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and then to the Minister if she still wants me to do so.

Hilton Dawson: In recent years, 28 children have been murdered in the most appalling circumstances during contact visits, many of which were ordered by the courts. Does not the hon. Gentleman fear that the approach that he suggests will encourage courts to make more contact orders in inappropriate cases? If he shares my concern about that, what does he think should be done?

Tim Loughton: The 28 children out of 150,000 each year who have died as a result of contact orders is 28 too many—we would all agree with that. We need to ensure that when there are clear risks, as may have been true in some of those 28 cases, the contact mechanisms and practice are better monitored and regulated. That is the solution. To tar 150,000 children as potential murder victims of non-resident parents is an insult to the 99.9 per cent. who are perfectly respectable parents. It also denies too many of the children the contact with their parents that is, as we keep saying, in the best interests of their welfare.

James Clappison: Obviously we have to be careful to safeguard children, but is it not true that if there is any suggestion or evidence that the child is at risk, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, from a parent seeking contact with them, the presumption would be displaced? It is only a presumption, and it can always be displaced if there is evidence.

Tim Loughton: That is right, which is why we have all agreed that if a child could be harmed by a legal presumption of contact, that would be a criterion for barring the parents. Nobody disputes that. The Bill is about producing better monitoring and protection orders for children, whether they are in a split family, with single parents or still living with two parents. I shall now give way to the Minister, who is bursting.

Margaret Hodge: I am indeed bursting, because the Opposition are either being disingenuous or deliberately dishonest, and that needs to be exposed. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the courts assume that contact with both parents is in the interests of the child. Case law establishes that clearly. Does he accept that point, and if so, what is he trying to achieve by establishing a second, conflicting principle in law that equal contact with parents should have the same paramountcy as the child's interests? Case law already establishes that it is in the interests of the child to see both parents.

Joe Benton: Order. Can all hon. Members keep their interventions as terse as possible? They are becoming a bit lengthy and more like contributions than interventions.

Tim Loughton: I completely agree, Mr. Benton. I have not made any interventions this morning.
 The Minister is now accusing us of being dishonest, but it is she who is being disingenuous. If the system were working swimmingly and 60 per cent. of fathers in such a position were not losing contact with their children, the Government would not have had to issue a Green Paper, fudged though it is after the dropping of the early interventions project, which was signed up to by many organisations but was then mysteriously squashed in her Department. It would have gone a long way towards addressing these problems. We are trying to ensure that all fit parents—most of them are—are treated as equal in terms of the rights and responsibilities attached to parenthood. 
 I want to return to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight earlier, which has not been discussed, and I will do that briefly later. I really wanted to make progress this morning, because there are other parts of the Bill, especially clause 9, that I am keen to talk about in more detail and that will not be debated elsewhere as our current subject will be. The Minister, other hon. Members and I could argue about it through all of our Committee sittings, but the fact that it has been introduced in a new clause has given it a paramountcy that was not intended for this Committee. That is not the Minister's fault, just a result of how the proposals have been rejigged. We proposed new clause 42 to put on record our determination to change the law to achieve a legal presumption of equal parental access. We will publish further details about mediation and other points, and will have a proper debate on the Floor of the House. 
 Nothing in new clause 42 suggests displacing the paramountcy of the child's welfare. It does not mention parents' rights; children are not possessions and chattels, as we debated at great length in the Adoption and Children Bill when we discussed people's rights to adopt. We agreed that there was no such thing as a right to adopt, only the right of the child to have a second chance at a decent upbringing. Nothing in the new clause undermines the paramountcy of the child's welfare. It would give a legal presumption a greater basis in law, which is essential for progressing contact cases. Those that 
 come to court take far too long, and ultimately the judge will say that the non-resident parent has lost contact with the child and therefore it is all too late. 
 The legal presumption, which is based on common practice in other countries, such as the United States, and especially Florida, will speed things up and make it more difficult to frustrate the contact process. That must be in the interests of the child's welfare, on which we agree.

Roger Williams: I think that we would agree that court proceedings often take a long time and frustrate parents' ambitions to maintain contact with their child. These are complicated issues and the hon. Gentleman is trying to simplify them. However, when one parent makes accusations of abuse, which the other parent sees as vexatious or a way of precluding contact with the child, the case needs to go to court to be considered in an expert way, in order to safeguard the child's interests.

Tim Loughton: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee said at the outset, this is a complicated, large and important issue, which goes well beyond the confines of the Committee, or indeed the Bill. We want to put the matter on the record because we do not understand the Government's case against our proposals, other than parroting the ridiculous claim that there is a conflict between the paramountcy of the child's welfare and according that child's parents equal access, in so far as that is possible and practicable.

Margaret Hodge: We are moving toward some agreement. We agree that the paramount principle should be the child's interests. The hon. Gentleman argues that there should be a presumption that both parents maintain access to and contact with their child, with which we would also agree. That is set in case law. Does he agree with Bob Geldof that the courts should operate on the principle that children should spend an equal amount of time with both parents, which is in the child's best interests? Does he agree with Bob Geldof, yes or no?

Tim Loughton: The Minister is smarting from the lashing that Bob Geldof gave her in a television programme transmitted a few days ago. He has some very strong views on the subject and I have discussed it with him.

Margaret Hodge: Yes or no?

Tim Loughton: In the strict definition of equal access, in terms of timing and so on, clearly that would not be the case. The Minister is leading us down a winding, dead-end, cul-de-sac, red herring thingy. She and I probably do not have equal time with our children; hers—without wanting to cast any aspersions—are, I think, a little older than mine. Although I live happily with my wife on the days when I am not in Parliament, I cannot claim that she and I have equal time with our children, much as I would like it to be otherwise. It would be completely
 impractical to try to replicate something that does not exist in the perfectly happy marriage that I enjoy now, in the same way, I trust, as many other hon. Members. That is not the point. The Minister is trying to ascribe a purist case to somebody, which is not strictly appropriate. The principle of both parents having equal access to their children and equal time with them is absolutely right, but in practice it will not be the case. It must be legally enshrined that if they could make that deal about access, they should be able to.
 The other point that I have been trying to return to, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill and is germane not only to the equal parenting issues that we are discussing at far greater length than I had wished, is that of sibling contact. That point is raised in an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. 
 We have discussed the importance of families and the fact that they should play a greater role in determining the welfare of the child. Particular considerations must be paid to siblings in the example of a family of looked-after children in which the siblings are separated and go to different families, areas and schools. That must surely be avoided if possible, because we must try to retain any semblance of normality and stability for children if they have lost a parent for whatever reason. I strongly endorse the point that my hon. Friend made about siblings in one of his amendments. 
 We will not resolve the issue in a half-hour debate in Committee. The Minister, myself and other hon. Members have staked our ground, and it is ground that will be revisited.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: Well, if I have to.

Hilton Dawson: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept, in staking out his ground, that if he is going to emphasise further to judges the benefits of contact, he will have to deal with what is regarded in the Green Paper as a patchy introduction and use of the Children Act sub-committee guidelines on contact and domestic violence? If he is going to go beyond the rather pious platitudes with which he responded to my previous intervention, he will come up hard against the judiciary, which already makes bad decisions about contact.

Tim Loughton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if my responses were in any way pious. That is not an angle that I tend to use, particularly when dealing with him in Committee.

Hilton Dawson: Good-natured, but pious.

Tim Loughton: Putting ''good-natured'' in front does not make the use of ''pious'' any more acceptable, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's semi-climbdown. He has blown the Minister's case by saying that the courts are not working. A lot of senior members of the judiciary sign up to many of the changes that we have proposed. Some of them even sign up to the changes that Sir Bob Geldof mentioned.
 We shall return to this subject, but I do not want to push the discussion any further at this stage. If we do not press the amendments further at this stage, I hope that the whole House will be able to return to the subject on Report and deal with it in its entirety.

Margaret Hodge: I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to move on, and I do not want to prevent him from making a contribution on further important clauses, and clause 9 in particular. The reason for this exchange was to try to expose the dishonesty of the Opposition's proposals. What has emerged is that we both agree that the paramount principle in determining how to establish contact and residence after a separation must be the child's interests. I again give Opposition Members the opportunity to deny that if they wish.
 We also agree that, in most cases, it is in the child's interests to maintain contact with both parents. When courts pursue cases of access and contact, it has been demonstrated that they try to maintain contact with both parents. They issue contact orders, which ensure that both parents are kept involved. 
 In that case, is the law wrong? No, so I see no purpose in Opposition Members trying to change the law. They are trying to be politically expedient and to capture votes from extremely distressed people, who go through utter hell when their marriages split up and they try to maintain contact with their children. That is the essence of the dishonesty in the position of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to describe my hon. Friend as dishonest? She referred to ''the essence of the dishonesty'' in his remarks.

Joe Benton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair comment. I ask the right hon. Lady to withdraw that phrase.

Margaret Hodge: I will withdraw it, but—[Hon. Members: ''No buts.''] I will withdraw that particular turn of phrase.

Tim Loughton: That was a very grudging withdrawal if ever I have heard one and it reveals the complete bankruptcy of the Government's approach. The amendment has nothing to do with expediency. The Opposition have had a great deal to do with the subject of access over the past year, and it is because the right hon. Lady's door has been closed to hundreds and thousands of distressed parents that they have come to us to ask us to take up their cases. She has singularly refused to do anything about that other than to produce a fudged Green Paper in response to the summit that we held. That will not solve the problem. She should not try to accuse us of opportunism or dishonesty, because those charges lie at her own door.

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman has neatly given me the appropriate word. I shall talk about opportunism, if that is parliamentary language, Mr. Benton; I apologise for using unacceptable terms.
 Everyone recognises that divorce and separation is painful for all parties involved. It is most painful for the children and, of course, it is painful for both parents. The question is whether the law is wrong and should be changed. The Opposition suggest that, by changing the law, they could in some way assuage the distress that is caused when parents who have split up get involved in such a bitter dispute that they cannot between themselves sort out the best way to manage access and contact so that both maintain contact and a meaningful relationship with their children and the damage caused to the children by their splitting up is minimised. That is where I think that there is a bit of opportunism in what Opposition Members are doing. They suggest that there is a solution in law beyond where the law currently exists that would somehow make things better in very distressing circumstances. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise that many mothers, fathers and children are deeply damaged and feel huge bitterness about how their relationships have been destroyed through separation and divorce.

Annette Brooke: I think that everyone agrees that the implementation of the current law is deficient in terms of serving the paramount principle and picking up the rights of both parents. Can the Minister give us an indication of the timetable on which she hopes to proceed with the Green Paper to tackle the problems that everyone accepts exist?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Lady takes the debate on and, in the interests of time, I should probably do so too. We all recognise that there are problems with implementing the law. The question is how we can try to improve matters for the 10 per cent. who end up in the courts; for many of them, the outcome is unsatisfactory. We are attempting to do that in three ways. First, we are encouraging more mediation and conciliation before people enter the court system. We have a number of propositions relating to that. If I may say so, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was utterly wrong to suggest that we have dropped the early intervention project. We have developed it through a multi-agency steering group, working with all the interested parties. We have renamed it the family resolutions pilot project, and it is now up and running in three areas of the country. Its purpose is to find conciliation as a mechanism for deciding the difficult issues of contact and residence without having to resort to judicial processes. The project exists and has not been dropped. If it works, we will want to ensure that it becomes common practice throughout the country.
 The second way is by speeding up court processes. We all agree that, all too often, the courts take far too long. There are many reasons, and the problem is not the courts' fault. The process itself takes too long, so the question is how we can speed it up to get a faster 
 resolution. The third issue is to try to provide a wider array of mechanisms to ensure the proper implementation of contact orders once they have been established. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham agrees with me, although he is yawning now, because I believe that this is a more important debate than some of those on other clauses. He is wrong to imply in what has been said publicly outside the House that he accepts the principle put forward by Fathers 4 Justice, Bob Geldof and others that there should be a presumption that we can divide the time that children spend with their parents so that they spend half of it with their mother and half with their father. That may happen in certain cases, and there is nothing in the current legal framework to prevent parents from deciding to do that, if it is appropriate in particular family circumstances. 
 What is wrong to me, and I would have hoped wrong to the Opposition, is for us to have a presumption in law that children's time can be divided half each between their mothers and fathers. That puts the rights of parents above the needs of their children and before those parents' responsibilities to their children. If the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, he is, at best, being misinterpreted by Fathers 4 Justice and others who imply that he is. I believe that the propositions in our Green Paper take us in the right direction. 
 Let me say something else to the hon. Gentleman. Very often there is political disagreement among the parties about how the state should intervene in family life. I am surprised that, when we are talking about the breakdown of a relationship between two adults, he believes that there is an appropriate court mechanism of intervention that can magically sort out disputes between adults about what is in the best interests of their children. There is not such a magical court resolution. However we redefined law—although I do not believe that his proposals would redefine the law—and certainly if we redefined it as Fathers 4 Justice want us to do, we would end up with more disputes, litigation, misery for children and anger among parents.

Tim Loughton: I am afraid that the Minister has not listened to a word that has been said and is being disingenuous in how she is trying to misinterpret us. What we are trying to achieve—it has nothing to do with Fathers 4 Justice, an organisation that I have had nothing to do with—is to cut down on lengthy court cases and legal actions, which are in nobody's interest. The presumption enshrined in law, which will be clear to both sides and tell them what they can get away with, is designed to avoid the lengthy court actions that the Minister says that she also wants to avoid.

Margaret Hodge: It is the hon. Gentleman who is disingenuous. Assuming that a presumption enshrined in law will change in practice what is already in case law is simply wrong. The presumption already exists in case law, but it has not reduced the time it takes to
 consider such cases. The other measures in our Green Paper are practical ones that may achieve our shared objective of reducing the time taken in court.
 I agree that the state cannot sort out relationships that go badly wrong. There is no role for the state in trying to intervene beyond trying to offer mediation and conciliation, which is the route that we are taking. That is the disingenuity and the opportunism of Opposition Members. 
 I will now make progress, which I know that the hon. Gentleman wants. I turn to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Amendment No. 222 has the same focus as new clause 44. The hon. Gentleman talked about contact with grandparents and other relatives. We all know that grandparents and other relatives are important to children who see them as important figures in their lives. The amendment would introduce the assumption that contact with other relatives is always desirable. I am sure that he did not intend that, as it may not always be the case. Where a child is in care or has been freed from adoption, the assumption that contact with relatives is desirable would be inappropriate. 
 The amendment would also mean that, in any proceedings affecting contact with a child, the courts would have to consider the desirability of contact with parents, grandparents and siblings. That could apply to many types of proceedings, such as those relating to domestic violence. If a court were in the middle of dealing with a case of domestic violence between a child's parents, it is hard to see how it would be appropriate for it to have to start considering the issue of contact with grandparents. 
 The amendment would require that the court widen its net when considering all cases relating to contact. Therefore, when parents bring a contact case to the courts, the desirability of contact with all other relatives would have to be considered contemporaneously, even if there was no indication that such contact was an issue. That would be an unnecessary burden on the courts and an unwelcome distraction for parents in dispute, at a time when we want to achieve what the hon. Gentleman said he wanted to achieve, which is to reduce delay and increase effectiveness in contact hearings. 
 Amendment No. 210—I apologise for rattling through these amendments—requires a children's services authority to 
''have regard to the views and wishes of both parents.'' 
Again, we accept that a children's services authority should take into account the views and wishes of all parents within the geographical area it covers. That is why we accepted the amendment tabled in another place. Clause 7(3) requires that the authority must have regard to the importance of parent and carers when making its co-operation arrangements. 
 Amendment No. 210, however, is inappropriate because those arrangements are focused on the strategic level of planning and commissioning and on the relationships and working practices held between agencies and their staff rather than matters concerning individual families. The hon. Gentleman referred to 
 parents who argue about schools. We hope that parents whose primary concern is the interests of their child would not get involved in such disputes. In the second case that he mentioned, the school must tell both parents. I obviously do not know the circumstances of the individual case. 
 Finally, I turn to amendment No. 221, which requires the children's services authority to take steps to facilitate the implementation of court orders relating to contact. In the minority of cases where there is an issue around implementation, we already have family assistance orders for up to six months, during which time the family will be assisted by a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officer or a social worker. We are currently consulting on additional proposals that are set out in our Green Paper on how we can improve the support that is offered to families after a court episode. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely aware of them, and I suggest that he looks at them. 
 The other important role here is that played by the child contact centres where we have consolidated and increased investment. It would, however, be wrong and entirely impracticable to require children's services authorities to intrude into the lives of the 3 million children who will experience parental separation during their childhood. Although we are happy to offer more support to children and families, I am unconvinced that a statutory duty, as suggested in amendment No. 221, is appropriate.

Andrew Turner: Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has dealt fully with new clause 44, I shall also discuss it briefly. I cannot believe that the Minister should believe that we believe what Bob Geldof believes—[Laughter.] That was as snappy as I could make that statement, which may bode badly for the rest of my remarks.
 It is, of course, impossible to divide a child in two either physically—thank goodness—or temporally. No one except Bob Geldof appears to be proposing that. I shall outline the Minister's misunderstanding. She said that we agree on paramountcy and on the interests of the child—we do. She also said that the courts try to maintain contact—they do. However, the courts do not try to maintain equal access by the child to each parent, or anything approaching that. If they did, there would be far fewer fathers and children who, for thirteen and a half days of each fortnight, did not see each other. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that, as I think that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) said on Second Reading—he is not in his place—[Interruption.] Is he not serving on the Committee? Regrettably, because some fathers choose to wipe out the evidence of their mistakes by murdering their children, it is absurd to suggest that any requirement on the courts to take further account of the needs of each parent is designed or is likely to lead to the murder of more children.

Hilton Dawson: I am sorry to prolong the debate, but I did not suggest anything of the sort. I said to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that if the Opposition seriously want to advance the proposition, they must deal with the fact that the judiciary already fails to protect children in cases involving contact and domestic violence. No one has managed to produce any evidence that the Opposition take that issue seriously.

Andrew Turner: May I be blunt? As the hon. Gentleman alleges, the judiciary may fail in cases of contact and domestic violence. However, as the Minister appears to have accepted by introducing the Green Paper, it fails a great deal more in enforcing contact for children with their parents in cases in which court orders to that effect have been issued.

Margaret Hodge: What is the judiciary to do?

Andrew Turner: The judiciary could have taken a more proactive role in enforcing the orders that it made. Its greater failure lies in that breach—in denying to children, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham so elegantly put it, the oxygen of contact with each parent.
 I shall now move on to discussion of the other amendments, and thank the Minister for dealing with them expeditiously and carefully. I accept that the three amendments are drawn too widely, which I think was her implication. I am happy to consider family assistance orders and new clause 44 in more detail as I do not wish children's services authorities to intervene when arrangements are working well. I flag up the fact that children's services authorities, or those who work for them, occasionally make things worse by appearing to take one parent's side in some cases. The Minister is keeping a straight face in response to that remark. 
 I accept that the amendments need to be considered in more detail; I am sure the Minister accepts the spirit in which they were tabled, which is to enable greater access for children to their parents, and to their siblings and grandparents. She is nodding and I thank her. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 7, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
 '( ) Contributions and payments may include goods, services, accommodation or other resources.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in
clause 12, page 10, line 38, after 'payments', insert 'or non-pecuniary contribution.'. 
No. 42, in 
clause 12, page 10, line 39, after 'expenditure', insert 'or other commitments'.

Tim Loughton: These are simple, straightforward amendments that have practical considerations, and I shall not dwell on them. An amendment on the same lines was accepted in the other place.
 Amendment No. 22 would affect co-operation to improve well-being under the children's services authorities by defining payments not just as cash. People who sign up to be partners of the children's services authorities will not necessarily contribute to them financially. They will provide goods and services and, in particular, the time of their professional staff. As drafted, the clause refers to payments and expenditure, which appears to exclude the use of professional time and other services that may be provided by the partners. 
 Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are to clause 12, which relates to the local safeguarding children boards and refers to payments. The amendments would ensure that the definition of ''payments'' is extended to include non-pecuniary contributions or other commitments. 
 The amendments are straightforward: they broaden the definition in the Bill. The Government agreed with the principle elsewhere in the measure—I am not sure precisely where—and I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will accept them. It would make it much clearer for the partners of the local children's services authorities and local safeguarding children boards that they would not be faced with an unexpected bill, and it would allow them to contribute in other ways.

Stephen Ladyman: Clause 7(7) specifies a pooled fund, which is usually taken to mean money accumulated for a particular purpose; the provision does not need to be broadened as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. A fund is unlikely to use tally sticks or bartering to further its objectives.
 I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that people who contribute to the fund need to be able to contribute a wider range of resources. The parts of the Bill that already make that clear are clause 7(6)—on page 6, lines 10 to 12—which allows a broad range of resources to be contributed, and clause 12(2), which allows a range of resources for local safeguarding children boards. I hope that he will agree that the Bill as drafted takes care of the matters raised, and that he will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's clarification. On the basis that we are not talking about tally sticks and bartering, but about the professional services that I have mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 3—Co-operation over provision of services— 
 '(1) This section applies to each of the following— 
 (a) those persons or bodies to which section 8 applies; 
 (b) the governing body and head teacher of a maintained school, an academy or an independent school;
 (c) any health provider commissioned by a primary care trust; 
 (d) registered social landlords. 
 (2) Each person and body to whom this section applies shall— 
 (a) cooperate with other such persons and bodies to whom this section applies; and 
 (b) ensure that any person providing services pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions co-operates with other such persons and bodies to whom this section applies, 
 so as to improve the well-being of children and to ensure that the welfare of children is safeguarded and promoted.'. 
New clause 5—Co-operation with other bodies: Wales— 
 '(1) This section applies to each of the following— 
 (a) those persons or bodies to which section 23 applies, 
 (b) the governing body and head teacher of a maintained school, an academy or an independent school, 
 (c) any health provider commissioned by a Local Health Board, 
 (d) registered social landlords. 
 (2) Each person and body to whom this section applies shall— 
 (a) co-operate with other such persons and bodies to whom this section applies; and 
 (b) ensure that any person providing services pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions co-operates with other such persons and bodies to whom this section applies, 
 so as to improve the well-being of children and ensure that the welfare of children is safeguarded and promoted.'. 
New clause 17—Co-operation of schools— 
 'Governing bodies of schools maintained by local authorities, academies, city colleges and independent schools must— 
 (a) co-operate with the children's service authority covering the area in which they are located to improve the well-being of children for whom they are responsible, and 
 (b) ensure that the welfare of children for whom they are responsible is safeguarded and promoted.'.

Stephen Ladyman: If it is all right with you, Mr. Benton, in the interests of making progress, I will not comment on clause stand part until I have heard the debate. I will reserve the right to come back to it later.

Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Can I now propose new clauses 3 and 5? I am slightly confused that we are taking the clause stand part debate as a written item on the ordering of amendments, but I have been surprised by many things on the ordering of amendments in this Committee so far.

Joe Benton: Clause 7 stand part is the lead item for discussion. Included in the grouping are new clauses 3 and 5, so it is permissible to speak to them but we shall vote on clause 7 stand part.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for that clarification. We have little objection to clause 7 other than the proposed technical amendments, on which I have sought clarification from the Under-Secretary. It is absolutely essential that the children's services authorities have the confidence and structures to bring together partners to improve all child protection processes.
 On that basis, we have tabled new clauses 3 and 5, which are supported by a number of children's organisations and by the Local Government Association. They would include schools as part of the co-operation process in the Bill. I know that the 
 subject was taken up in another place and that a Minister assured noble Members that such provisions were covered under the Education Act 2002. However, the fact that schools are not included sticks out like a sore thumb, hence the phraseology of new clause 3—the principle is repeated for aspects of the Bill concerning Wales. 
 The new clauses would place a duty on all agencies operating at a managerial and service-delivery level to co-operate to safeguard and protect children and improve their well-being. They are primarily probing amendments. Great changes are happening in school structures under the Government's five-year strategy for children and learners, which proposes increased autonomy for schools, and I do not disagree with that. However, that could lessen the influence of the children's services authorities, with which the duty to co-operate lies. Without a mandatory duty for schools, as well as the children's services authorities, to co-operate, the levers may not be sufficiently effective to ensure that schools work with other agencies to improve the well-being of children. 
 There is also the question of how children's trusts will operate. Again, that is part of evolving processes that the Government are setting up. Arrangements to co-operate will, in certain circumstances, be made through children's trusts, yet they will not be required to co-opt schools and other partners as part of those partnerships. We are concerned about that. 
 Tools such as joint area reviews will help to bring about cultural change, but their impact will be limited. For example, inspections may happen only every four to six years, and the integrated inspection framework does not make it clear what mechanisms can be invoked if schools do not contribute effectively. Those tools do not provide strategic players with sufficient leverage to ensure that, with immediate effect, professionals work together when a child has difficulties that require the services of more than one agency. 
 We are trying to emphasise the essential role of schools and educational facilities, which are now diverse, in the partnerships that will provide the solution to the problem of better safeguarding children and early intervention and protection. After all, a vulnerable child probably has more contact with schools and teachers than with any other professional referred to in the Bill. If the child does not attend school, obviously there are other problems, but great play can be made of the role of schools. 
 We also include health providers and registered social landlords. Again, there is great concern about the failure to include all health providers in the Bill as part of the partnerships. We shall return later to amendments that we have tabled with the aim of defining and broadening the remit of health providers, because the definitions in the Bill are narrow. We spoke about the role of registered social landlords earlier, when we wanted people's housing and accommodation to be among the welfare considerations in the Bill. 
 I shall not speak at greater length, because the new clauses are quite self-explanatory and have been aired in another place already. We simply seek assurances from the Minister as to why those partners are not included in the Bill. I hope that that will go beyond just referring back to the provisions of Education Acts or whatever.

Annette Brooke: I support the comments that have been made, because there is deep concern that the Bill does not explicitly refer to schools, housing and the deliverers of health services. Having read carefully the debate in the other place, I felt that the Government would probably firmly reject new clauses 3 and 5. However, that is not to say that I do not support them strongly, so I have tried to think about what the real problem is.
 Picking up on the points about schools, I want to mention the increased autonomy that many of our schools have. I am thinking of city academies, and indeed independent schools, which one does not feel are really tied into the promotion of well-being and the safeguarding of children. I therefore attempted, not in the best possible way, to write new clause 17. Inevitably, maintained schools do have that responsibility, but it needs redefining in light of the five-year plans and increased autonomy. Independent schools seem not to be brought into the framework at all. In the case of academies and independent schools, can we be sure that a school that is motivated by achieving high academic results will pick up and work in the best interests of a vulnerable child? Sometimes the quickest and easiest way of dealing with the situation is to have the child removed but without necessarily picking up on support services. 
 Although I accept that the new clause has imperfections, I ask the Minister to respond to the concerns relating to all three issues that have been identified, and in particular those about the role of city academies and independent schools and how they will be brought into the loop and co-operate with one another for the well-being of children and the safeguarding of their futures.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady referred on Second Reading to children not being in school. I notice that she has not made any reference to that in her new clause. Will that appear elsewhere?

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted my comments. There are obviously alternative ways of educating children, and I am aware that most local authorities have strong checks on home education. Ensuring that everything is fully safeguarded has been mentioned, including by some organisations. However, I want to focus on mainstream schooling, which is an important area that has been ignored in the Bill. I know from my local authority that education at home is supported and inspected carefully.

Stephen Ladyman: The principle of clause 7 is to place a duty on certain key partners to co-operate in furthering the interests of children and delivering the
 outcomes that children have told us are appropriate. It is a key component of the Bill and should stand part of it. However, I can understand the motivation of Opposition Members in proposing new clauses 3 and 5. Although education authorities, for example, are included as key partners in the Bill, I understand the concern that schools that have some autonomy might not co-operate.
 I disagree, however, with the proposal that the best way of dealing with that is to create an exhaustive list of the people and partners who must try to work together—it is not possible, because we will always forget somebody. One example is that in the list in new clauses 3 and 5, pupil referral units have not been mentioned. If we tried to produce an exhaustive list in the Bill, it might appear to exclude anyone we forgot about, so I do not think it is the way forward.

Tim Loughton: I hear what the Minister is saying, and the same argument has been made before when debating parents. However, does he not think that schools, which I think we agree have the most contact potential with the children, and health providers, which are not limited to hospitals, are such general terms that they deserve special treatment, even if that may mean leaving something else out?

Stephen Ladyman: Special treatment, yes. It is difficult to argue that special treatment can be implicit rather than explicit, but that is what I am arguing. They get special treatment in the Bill and are covered by its provisions, but that is done without naming each individual school.
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools will be a vital layer. After all, schools are where most children have the bulk of their contact with public services. However, the way to ensure that they are fully engaged in the agenda is to ensure that we are producing self-confident schools that understand their responsibilities under ''Every child matters'' and the Bill. We can use tools such as amending the legal framework for school inspections to take account of the duties, and we can involve the school improvement partner to ensure that they are also aware of the duties. There is a range of things that we can do, other than trying to include every possible partner in the Bill, that will be far more effective in delivering the outcomes that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Annette Brooke: Does the Minister not agree that a pupil referral unit would almost certainly come under the maintained sector and therefore be covered by the list? In the context of schools, with a reference to the independent and maintained sectors, I do not think that much will be missed out.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Lady has just made my point for me. The Bill, as it stands, encompasses pupil referral units. That is implicit in the wider duties specified in the Bill, and there is no need to name every single partner.
 In supporting the amendments, the hon. Lady made the point that we should try to think of every possible partner and include them in the Bill. We disagree on that. I do not believe that it is necessary to take that 
 approach; it is better to try to create a network of support for all the partners through the inspection and other improvement processes that are in place. I agree with her that it is necessary to ensure that all the partners work together on the agenda, but I do not agree that they need to be included in the Bill. 
 All schools already have a welfare duty for all their pupils, so it is not necessary for any particular group of pupils to be specified in the Bill, as proposed in new clause 17. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in
clause 8, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
'(ca) a Special Health Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England, designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 27, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 35, at end insert 
 'and its practitioners, and other health related bodies or individuals that provide services on their behalf.'. 
Amendment No. 28, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 37, at end insert 
 'and its practitioners, and other health related bodies or individuals that provide services on their behalf.'. 
Amendment No. 29, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 38, at end insert 
 'and its practitioners, and other health related bodies or individuals that provide services on their behalf.'. 
Amendment No. 32, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 4, leave out from 'children' to end of line 7. 
Government amendment No. 208.

Stephen Ladyman: Government amendment No. 203 and the technical amendment associated with it—amendment No. 208—include special health authorities in the Bill. When we first drafted the Bill, we excluded those authorities, in error, because we did not envisage their having a role in supporting children. However, it then occurred to us that NHS Direct is a special health authority and might have an important role in supporting children. We tabled the amendment to include special health authorities in the Bill, so that NHS Direct could be included, but we have not named NHS Direct explicitly, because a future Government might envisage the creation of new special health authorities that would equally have a role. If the Opposition are foolish enough to insist on the other amendments grouped with Government amendment No. 203, I shall discuss those later in the debate.

Tim Loughton: I am alarmed that the Minister appears to be prejudging the foolishness of what I am about to say. That is unjust and uncharitable of him.
 Our amendments are probing; their aim is to achieve greater clarity in the Bill. As it stands, the set of bodies for which the duty to safeguard and promote welfare exists is very general. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 would add the word ''practitioners'' after the various health bodies that are mentioned: a primary care trust in subsection 1(d), an NHS trust in subsection 1(e) and an NHS foundation trust in subsection 1(f). 
 How do the provisions of the Bill include private practitioners? Do they include a private physiotherapist or any other allied professionals who may be working part-time privately or part-time contracted to a primary care trust? How does it affect people who are working entirely in the independent sector? 
 Health care in this country is becoming increasingly fragmented. I make no criticism of that—it is the way it is going—but as the clause stands, we are talking only about a primary care trust. By its narrowest definition, one might take it to mean purely the directors of a primary care trust, the NHS trust to which it may be responsible and the NHS foundation trusts. Would a single-handed physiotherapist who did some contracted work for a hospital department but had a private practice, or an osteopath with a mainly private practice, be included under the Bill as having a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children? 
 I make no disparaging comments about privately practising osteopaths or physiotherapists, but they are just as likely to come into contact with young people, and cases of child abuse or neglect may come to light as a result of contact with those professionals. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 are designed to ensure that all practitioners are involved, regardless of whether they are directly part of a hospital trust, directly employed by a primary care trust, occasionally work for it, or look after patients who come under a primary care trust but do so on an entirely private basis. 
 Amendment No. 32 would delete subsection (2)(b). We wanted to replace it with another subsection that we discussed earlier. We will not push that amendment but we seek clarification on amendments Nos. 27 to 29 which are probing amendments to ensure that everyone is included in the scope of the Bill, as we all intend.

Stephen Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Subsection (2)(b) states that it must be ensure that
''any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.'' 
 In other words, anybody who is contracted or employed under an arrangement by, for example, a PCT to deliver services is explicitly brought within the ambit of the Bill and will have a duty to co-operate in the interests of children.

Andrew Turner: When I read that originally I had assumed that it included national health service trusts because they provide services pursuant to
 arrangements made by a primary care trust. Is there not some duplication? The Minister criticises my hon. Friend for duplicating but has he not done so himself?

Stephen Ladyman: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are legitimate. The principle is clear. We have established a number of partners who we believe have a duty to safeguard and maintain the well-being of children. We have not been explicit in stating all the partners that those people may employ to fulfil this duty because the duty is on the person who is organising the service. For example, the reason we included primary care trusts rather than individual GPs is that PCTs may decide to discharge their duties in respect of the Bill in several ways by commissioning services from a variety of people. It is important that those responsible for commissioning the services are in the Bill; anyone whom they might use to discharge their duties and responsibilities under this and other Bills is therefore automatically included.

James Clappison: I am following carefully what the Under-Secretary has said. Can he give us some examples of the people he envisages will be employed by PCTs to discharge the duties on their behalf?

Stephen Ladyman: Certainly. PCTs might use nurse practitioners, rather than general practitioners, for some functions, which would be a legitimate choice for them. They might even choose to commission services from private providers under the terms of agreements that the health service is pursuing to increase the range of capacity and improve services in local areas. If they are contracting with anybody, they are ultimately brought within the ambit of the Bill, because the duty is on the PCTs, the commissioners of services, to discharge the duties that the Bill gives them.

James Clappison: When a PCT is dealing with the parties that the Under-Secretary described, will it be responsible for informing them that they are discharging their duties under the Children Bill?

Stephen Ladyman: Absolutely. It is the responsibility of anyone who commissions services to ensure that the people from whom they commission them understand all their duties, not just under this measure but under all legislation. In particular, so far as children and the national health service are concerned, it will be their duty to ensure that they understand best practice as set out in the national service framework, and that all those from whom they commission services work together to ensure that that framework is implemented in the local area.

Tim Loughton: I am still not clear where private practitioners come in, because a PCT is not, for example, commissioning the services of a private physiotherapist to whom a young person chooses to go. How does the Bill therefore cover that private physiotherapist?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that the Bill refers only to those services that are commissioned by the partners mentioned in the Bill. If a child uses services through any other route, whether from a private practitioner or from McDonald's, their duties will be set out in the wide range of children's welfare legislation. I undertake to reflect on the paragraph and consider whether it is necessary to include a duty on those people who are not commissioned by any of the partners to fulfil a function that is not already covered by legislation. My understanding is that their duties to safeguard the well-being of children will be protected elsewhere, but I shall have another think to ensure that we are not missing anything.

Andrew Turner: In answering my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary did not deal with a PCT securing the services of a national health service trust, which is understandable, because it is covered by subsection (1)(e). However, I wonder whether subsection (1)(d) would cover an NHS trust in Wales, the services of which had been secured for a child resident in England. Is there a lacuna in the Under-Secretary's thinking in that respect?

Stephen Ladyman: No, I do not believe there is a lacuna, because the services commissioned by the PCT are covered in the Bill; it does not matter from where those services are commissioned. Whether they are commissioned from a trust in Wales or a private practitioner, as has been suggested, it is the duty of the primary care trust to ensure that the people providing the services understand their duties under both the Bill and the national service framework to ensure that children's well-being is protected. It might be worth our reflecting on the situation in which a child goes to a private practitioner completely outside the range of the services commissioned by the partners in the Bill, and I have undertaken to do that.
 Amendment agreed to.

Joe Benton: Before we proceed further on clause 8, there is a technical point that requires a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. There is no need for Members to leave the Room, but I will suspend the Committee for a few minutes.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming— 
 Ordered, 
 That the Order of the Committee of 12th October be amended, in paragraph 2, by leaving out the words ''clauses 2 to 14, schedule 2, clauses 15 to 34, schedule 3, clauses 35 to 41'' and inserting the words ''clauses 2 to 8, 10 to 14, schedule 2, clauses 15 to 34, schedule 3, clauses 35 and 36, 9 and 37 to 41''.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
The Chairman: In effect, that means that we are putting clause 9 back so that it will be debated on Thursday after clause 36.

Column Number: 179

Clause 8Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare

Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in
clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
 '( ) the British Transport Police Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England;'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 149.

Margaret Hodge: The amendments reflect a promise that we made in the House of Lords. We had omitted to place the British Transport police on the list of organisations that will have a duty to make arrangements for ensuring that
''their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children''. 
This is not a contentious issue. We have discussed it with the Department for Transport, and everybody has agreed that as the British Transport police have wide contact with the public, and with children in particular, it is appropriate to include them in the clause. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Roger Williams: I welcome the amendments. There is just one point that I want the Minister to respond to. All the bodies and authorities mentioned in clause 23 are either devolved or situated in Wales, but the British Transport police headquarters is in London, so how will they exercise their responsibility? The Welsh Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into policing in Wales and will examine the role of the British Transport police in Wales, but it may be more appropriate to specify in the Bill that the Welsh headquarters of the British Transport police be involved.

Margaret Hodge: I hope that we have covered the hon. Gentleman's concerns in the amendment to clause 23, in which we agreed that it would be helpful to have a mirror clause for Wales to ensure consistency. Unless I have missed something—if I have, perhaps he would like to reply—I thought that we had covered that point.

Roger Williams: I think that we have covered the point, but my question is how the British Transport police will fulfil their responsibilities in practical terms. Will that be done be through a local arrangement, or will it be bureaucratic and done through its headquarters?

Margaret Hodge: I could write to the hon. Gentleman if that would be helpful, but the answer is that we cannot specify in the Bill exactly what parts of an organisation will have the duty imposed on them. We are attempting to specify that Welsh children will be protected. This is a technical point, so it may be helpful for me to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the comfort that he seeks for Welsh children.
 Amendment agreed to.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
clause 8, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
'(ja) the chief immigration officer at ports of entry to England;'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert— 
 '(l) a regional office of the National Asylum Support Service; 
 (m) the centre manager of an immigration removal centre; 
 (n) the Chief Immigration Officer at a port of entry.'.

Tim Loughton: Amendment No. 30 would add an extra person to the list of people involved in arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare. In another place there was a lot of talk about this issue, and a number of children's organisations have made representations to the effect that the whole of the asylum and immigration service should be included in the list of those having a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That is a contentious issue.
 I have some sympathy with the argument that, if the Government had to pay undue regard to the welfare of children in the asylum system whose claims, with those of their parents, were being assessed, that could advance the claims of certain asylum seekers. The welfare of children could therefore be used to extend the stay in this country of people who are not entitled to stay, and that is fraught with problems. That is why we have not replicated such amendments in Committee.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If it could be established that the clause would have no effect on the operation of the immigration laws and the determination of asylum claims, would he be sympathetic to the idea of giving those children the same protection that is afforded to children elsewhere?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes an important point: children are children wherever they may be. We will not stand by and allow harm to come to children who happen to be in the asylum system in this country. We must ensure that the asylum and immigration service, under the Home Office, has measures in place to ensure that those children, as well as the rest of their families, are properly looked after. The risk is that having greater regard to the welfare of those children in the asylum system would in some way prejudice the assessment of their case by the immigration services, and that situation could be used by people who would bring children here to advance their own asylum cases. That argument was mentioned in another place, which is why I have not tried to replicate it. I have limited the additional consideration to the chief immigration officer at ports of entry.
 That consideration is reflected in amendment No. 99, in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. That would extend the measure to the National Asylum Support Service and immigration removal centres; he will no doubt argue as to why he thinks it should go that far. I have explained why we would not extend it that far. 
 I believe that a particular role is played by chief immigration officers at ports of entry to this country, especially with regard to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Many of us have spoken on this subject before, and it featured in a private Member's Bill that I promoted last year, which also included the registration of private fostering considerations. Too many minors appear at ports of entry to this country and then get lost in the system for a host of reasons. In some cases, it is difficult to prove their age and, therefore, whether they are a minor. 
 A case in my county, of which the Minister is aware, involved a number of girls arriving from west Africa, particularly Nigeria and Sierra Leone, as unaccompanied asylum seekers. Many of them had been intimidated out of their countries by unscrupulous pimps—I use that word advisedly—with threats of voodoo curses befalling them if they did not comply. Those children arriving at Gatwick airport were, correctly, taken into the care of West Sussex social services and put into foster care—private foster care, in some cases—but then they mysteriously disappeared. At least 44 girls have disappeared over the past few years. Girls have been taken by those pimps, often in the middle of the night, and driven to the continent, via Belgium for some reason, where many of them have ended up in the sex industry in northern Italy, particularly Milan. 
 Fortunately, because the profile of that hideous practice has been raised here and in the media, and because of excellent work by West Sussex social services, Sussex police and the Home Office, the practice appears to have ended. I fear that it has not ended altogether and has just gone elsewhere, but at least we have stopped it being a problem at Gatwick airport. It is still a problem in other parts of the country, however. 
 We must do more. I know that the Minister has taken that fact on board and that there is now greater co-operation between social services departments and the Home Office in the form of the immigration service at ports of entry. That happens at Gatwick airport, at Dover in Kent and at other airports and ports. It means that social services are, in effect, part of the welcoming party, so that a child claiming to be 18 when he or she is not, and a child accompanied by someone who is not obviously a parent or does not obviously have parental authority, are not just nodded through. Unaccompanied minors should be passed on to the appropriate social services department. 
 We must place a duty of care on the immigration service at ports of entry to ensure that when such children arrive, their welfare is a consideration. People should be concerned not only with whether they have the right documentation but with what will happen to them when they go outside the confines of the port or airport and are in the big wide world of the United Kingdom. 
 This probing amendment is designed to see how we can include in the Bill the chief immigration officer at the port of entry without going into the argument 
 about including the whole immigration and asylum service; I fully acknowledge that there would be problems with that. We need to have far greater regard to children arriving at ports of entry, and that is what the amendment would achieve.

Hilton Dawson: I support much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I should like to speak to amendment No. 99, which goes a little further. The reason for adding more agencies to the lengthy list in subsection (1) is sound: those agencies play a critical role in the welfare and support of refugee children, who are some of the most vulnerable children in the world. They are generally outside the remit of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and within that of the Home Office, so seems important to identify them at this stage.
 One good reason for identifying those agencies is because article 18 of the European asylum reception conditions directive, which has to be implemented by February 2005, requires the Government to ensure that the best interests of children seeking asylum shall be a primary consideration. It is therefore vital that the regional offices of the National Asylum Support Service, the centre managers of immigration removal centres—there has been a sixfold increase in the number of children living with their parents in such centres—and the chief immigration officer at ports of entry should be included. 
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke eloquently about the situation at Gatwick. Some good joint work has been undertaken through Operation Paladin Child at Heathrow. Over three months last year the immigration services, the police and social services worked together on the issue of unaccompanied children arriving at Heathrow. During that period no fewer than 1,738 children arrived entirely unaccompanied; 551 of them were risk-assessed by the joint team with the result that 31 were accommodated by the local authority straight away. Three were placed on the child protection register, and an attempt was made to follow up the other members of the group who had gone off to other parts of the country to be met by relatives or people who purported to be relatives. 
 Of those 28 children, 14 had either left the country or had sought asylum under different names and identities from those under which they entered the country. But 14 children remain completely unaccounted for. That is 14 children over a three-month period. We can all do the maths and think about what that means annually for Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and all the other possible ports of entry. This is the most serious situation that one could possibly imagine. 
 Victoria Climbie would not have come under the remit of Operation Paladin Child because she came into the country on an EU passport, but how many of those 14 children, or multiples of 14 children, are living in dire circumstances such as those experienced by Victoria Climbie? How many are working in the sex 
 industry or subject to domestic servitude? How many are privately fostered? No one, either inside or outside the Room, knows. 
 It is fundamental—I cannot see why anyone should disagree—that the main agencies, which have a critical role in relation to refugee children, should be brought firmly within the remit of subsection (1). They would thereby be included in the arrangements for safeguarding children and involved in compiling the information databases, which is fundamental if we are to have an effective information system across the UK. We are dealing not only with children who were born in the UK, but with intensely vulnerable children at the point at which they enter the country. I hope that the Government will respond positively to my amendment and that tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

Roger Williams: Liberal Democrat Members support the spirit of the amendments, which ties in well with the Government's assurance that they will accept the UN convention on the rights of the child as regards immigration and asylum.
 The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre made some sound points. He obviously has great experience of the nature and scale of the problems that we are discussing. 
 Many children who come in with families that are seeking refugee status—asylum—in the UK have experienced conditions that are almost inconceivable for people living in this country. That is why they wish to make a new life in the UK, safe from threats to their well-being and their lives. They are in a very vulnerable state, and it is the duty of a civilised country—indeed, it is a test of how civilised we are—to protect those children in their time of need. 
 My colleagues and I support amendment No. 99, because it would give fuller and more comprehensive protection to children in those conditions. In Committee in another place, Lord Howe made a telling contribution on those lines. He pointed out that the Government's objection that the imposition of a duty might affect the primary function of those bodies could equally apply to the primary function of all the other organisations that are included. We do not believe that an exception should be made for the bodies that are responsible for asylum seekers and others who come to the UK as immigrants. I hope that the Government will examine the amendments and seek to accommodate the principle that we are trying to establish. 
 The amendment tabled by Conservative Members relates only to England, but should relate to all the devolved nations as well, because they, too, have ports of entry that may be implicated.

Tim Loughton: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but immigration is not a devolved matter and therefore not covered by the Bill. It would not be left to the Welsh Assembly; it would come under the Home Office.

Roger Williams: That is surely the point. We are making primary legislation for the UK which, if amended, would cover ports of entry in the devolved countries as well. That is why it is important not to limit the measure to England. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre does not have that limitation.

James Clappison: I rise briefly to say that I am attracted by both amendments. My qualification is the same as the one that I made earlier: I would not be so sympathetic if the amendments interfered in any way with how immigration cases, in particular asylum cases, were dealt with. They have to be dealt with according to the law and determined on their merits. If there was any interference, I would not be so sympathetic. I should like to hear from the Minister whether there would be such interference and why that would be so.
 I note that the other bodies included in the clause as ones that deal with children include police authorities, chief police officers and governors of prisons, and there does not seem to be a problem with that. They do not seem to be prevented from implementing the law in respect of the people whom they are dealing with, and by the provisions they are made subject to the duties. They will be able to do their duty of investigating crime, sometimes arresting young people and bringing them to justice, and managing them if they receive a custodial sentence. If those functions are not to be affected, and they will carry out the law normally, subject to a duty of care to the children, I do not see why the immigration service should be an exception. 
 As matters stand, there is a worry in my mind that, without a good explanation, it would look as though we were making the children of asylum seekers and immigrants second-class children who do not receive the same duty of care as others. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre gave fair reasons for his amendment. It is likely that many such children will be vulnerable, having been through various experiences before coming here, and in particular need of being looked after properly. I look to the Minister for an explanation of why they are not covered in the Bill, when otherwise the clause appears to be as comprehensive as possible and designed to ensure that all children are looked after properly.

Annette Brooke: I want to make two brief points. First, since speaking to senior police officers, I have had great concern about the data collected on children entering this country. I received a written parliamentary answer indicating that there is no systematic collection of data. That is why I believe that the amendment is important. We will talk about the database in due course. If the clause does not specifically mention children entering the country, how will they be picked up on the database? I know that Victoria Climbie did not quite fit into that model, but we could easily envisage how somebody arriving in the country in such circumstances could fail to be protected by the database, which, as the Minister has said, is a central point of the Bill. I emphasise that
 point about data collection, because otherwise how will we know that we have the children in the country and that they are being protected?
 The second point is that, as the Minister will know, I do not agree with the detention of any children. If they are to be detained in removal centres, it is vital that the centres have such a duty of care.

Andrew Turner: I should like to say one or two things that may be unpopular, and to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and question the Minister on why amendment No. 99 might be less acceptable than the EU directive to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred.
 I do not think that it is unfair to say that a child who has no right of abode in this country is a second-class child when compared with a child who has that right. That does not mean that that child should be treated less well for the purpose of this Bill, but I wanted to pick up on the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. A child who comes from another country is the responsibility of that child's parents, wherever it is. Let us not try to take on the burdens of the world, even though they sometimes present themselves at our ports of entry. 
 Having said that, of course I accept that there is a need for us to extend to children in this country whatever protection we can. I am therefore attracted to the amendment No. 99, although I have to say that I am more attracted to amendment No. 30. When the Minister rejects the former amendment, as I suspect that she will, I should be grateful—I was not aware of this until the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned it—if she could explain what is meant by the words 
''having regard to the need''. 
The hon. Gentleman is essentially asking that not only the chief immigration officer but a regional officer of the National Asylum Support Service and the centre manager of an immigration removal centre ''must make arrangements'' for ensuring that their functions are discharged 
''having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children''. 
Meanwhile, the EU directive appears to say—I hope that I have written the words down correctly—that the best interests of children seeking asylum shall be a primary consideration, presumably of each nation or each high contracting party, or some such terminology. It seems to me that that phrase places a greater obligation on the Government than 
''must make arrangements . . . having regard to the need''. 
Mr. Dawson indicated assent.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is nodding. I take it, although I am not sure, that the Government have accepted the EU directive. No one seems to know, but given that it—
Mr. Dawson rose—

Andrew Turner: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me.

Hilton Dawson: I understand that the directive is under consideration by the Government but is required to be implemented by February 2005.

Andrew Turner: That means that it is the mode of implementation that is under consideration, not the acceptability in principle of the directive. The hon. Gentleman gestures in the direction of the Minister, and I am sure that she would intervene to tell me, if she knew, whether the directive has been accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government. She is not receiving much enlightenment from the usual sources.
 If the Government have accepted the directive, that surely subsumes anything in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. The Minister is looking like the grin without the cat. What can possibly be the objection to amendment No. 99 if the EU directive is acceptable? If the amendment is unacceptable, surely the EU directive is also unacceptable and will be resisted—or has been resisted, successfully one hopes—by the Government in Brussels and will not be implemented, because that would drive a coach and horses through our immigration legislation. 
 If the best interests of a child seeking asylum shall be a primary consideration for Her Majesty's Government or the agencies of the Government, then it is in the best interests of any child to remain in the United Kingdom. To be born a citizen of the United Kingdom is to win first prize in the lottery of life, and to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom is a pretty good second prize. I do not see why the EU directive should be acceptable to the Government if amendment No. 99 is not.

Margaret Hodge: I hope that we can make the progress that hon. Members have shown they desire in considering these clauses so that we leave proper time to consider some issues that are important to both Government and Opposition Members. I hope that we can work in a mood of co-operation.
 The issue is important to us all. The vulnerability of children who come to this country as asylum seekers, and are granted asylum, is enormous. They are fleeing from terror, violence and oppression, and our duty of care to safeguard and protect them, and promote their well-being and welfare, must be paramount. The issue is complex because we are talking about children who arrive in different ways. They may arrive as unaccompanied asylum seekers, or they may arrive in families and then be exploited in some way—that is extremely difficult to detect and protect against. There may also be children who come to the UK via the EU and therefore are not subject to immigration procedures. We are trying to deal with a pretty complex set of issues. 
 When we discuss clause 9, we will see that one of its prime purposes is to establish a system for collecting information about every child in Britain. More than anything, that must include asylum-seeking children who are in this country. Once a child is here we have a 
 duty to safeguard and protect them and to promote their well-being. Too many get lost in the system in one way or another. Establishing a tool that provides information about children will support the endeavour of better tracking children so that we can better protect them. It is very much that vulnerable group of children that is at the heart of our concerns in establishing the database. 
 Clearly, if and when we accept the EU directive—as I understand it from the best advice that I have been given this morning, it is currently under consideration—we will consider carefully how best to implement it in a way that does not have an impact on the running of the immigration service. That is where we are. I cannot give the hon. Member for Isle of Wight any more details this morning, but clearly we will have regard to that issue. 
 Amendment No. 30 is intended to place a duty on the chief immigration officer at a port of entry. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would probably accept that a chief immigration officer at a port of entry makes decisions about detention, temporary admission and removal, as well as leave to enter. Thus, in practice, he or she represents the whole of the immigration service. Although amendment No. 99 would include other bodies in the Bill, the intent of the two amendments is pretty similar. The agencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentions have clear and specific functions in relation to managing the immigration system, so in a sense both amendments are part of the same thing. 
 The problem with the amendments was alluded to by the hon. Members for Hertsmere, for East Worthing and Shoreham, and for Isle of Wight. In considering the wording of the clause 8 duty and the agencies on which we would want to impose it, we have been careful to ensure that we do not place a duty on agencies that would make it difficult for them to fulfil their primary function. I want to explain that. There are safeguards in place throughout the whole of the immigration and nationality directorate. A statutory duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote children's welfare could, perhaps not in intent but in implementation, undermine the immigration and asylum system by providing opportunities for individual families or children to challenge what might be perfectly legitimate decisions taken under immigration legislation. That could lead to the system being misused by those seeking to secure admission to and residence in the UK.

Hilton Dawson: I do not therefore understand why those points do not apply to either the police or the Prison Service, which are explicitly identified in the clause.

Margaret Hodge: The phrase ''having regard to'', which relates to how bodies would have to implement their duties, is stronger than omitting a body altogether—we are omitting the immigration service from clause 8. It means that bodies have to give serious consideration to and act in a correct way that is consistent with children's needs unless there is a good reason not to do so.
 As all hon. Members know, the immigration service is a highly contentious issue in the context of maintaining social cohesion in our communities. I speak from experience in my constituency where a British National party councillor was recently elected in a by-election. That arose largely from the fear that has emerged from the sudden growth in the number of people perceived to be coming into the constituency through the immigration system—ironically, they are not necessarily coming in through that system, but come from different parts of London and choose to live there. It is a difficult situation to get right and we must be extremely careful in administering our immigration service to be utterly fair to genuine asylum seekers. I say that from a heartfelt position as one who benefited from the immigration system that existed and allowed my parents entry to this country. We must also have regard to the social cohesion argument.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Hodge: Let me finish my argument. The difficulty with the amendment, and with giving dual functions to the immigration service, is that people could legitimately be turned down for an application for asylum, but if the immigration service has to have regard to the duty of safeguarding and promoting the interests of children, the family could argue that, given that the health and education services are better in this country than in the country from which the children came, it would be in the children's interests to remain here. Giving the family the opportunity to raise that argument, which is legitimate, would undermine the integrity of the immigration system, which we must maintain if we are to achieve social cohesion and welcome into our community people coming in either through the work permit system, or who are seeking asylum.

Hilton Dawson: Surely the police service is no less important to social cohesion than the immigration service. No one is suggesting that the function given to the police service to make arrangements to safeguard and promote children's welfare will stop them dealing with crime or arresting people. If we continue to draw this distinction, we are falling into the difficulty that the hon. Member for Hertsmere and the Joint Committee on Human Rights identified, that we could be seen to discriminate against people.

Margaret Hodge: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and the answer is that if we are to promote social cohesion in relation to immigration, it is important that we have a swift, speedy and fair system of dealing with asylum seeker applications. If we were to put that duty on the immigration service, in whatever way we want to formulate it—through either amendment No. 99 or No. 30—it would give a legitimate cause for further appeals if the original appeal on the right to entry had been rejected. That would prolong the system and militate against the
 creation of a speedy, fair immigration system, which is a precondition of ensuring that we can promote a multiracial society where there is social cohesion.
 The issue that causes me concern is the attempt to place a duty on the immigration service. We need to be clear about the consequences that that duty could have. People would perceive flaws in the asylum and immigration system, which could be difficult for us to handle.

Hilton Dawson: Is my right hon. Friend therefore saying that the immigration service is to be entirely excluded from the requirements to take part in information databases and the work of information services that the Government will place on other authorities?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend asks a question about the immigration service. I want to come on to what we are trying to do with that service and others in relation to whether it is unaccompanied asylum-seeking children or children coming in through other mechanisms who may be in danger. I am working with those services closely to ensure that we have systems that are safe for those children who are temporarily or permanently in this country and for whom we therefore have overriding responsibility.
 I would just make one final argument on the difference between immigration services and the police. All the evidence we have suggests that the immigration service is particularly vulnerable to challenges. As my hon. Friend will know, people desperate to stay will exploit any avenue open to them. The police are not in the same situation. By and large, they are not challenged in the same way, and although I recognise the difficulty of that position, I hope that he understands that for the purposes of social cohesion we have to tread very carefully. 
 I now come to the IND's commitment to children, which is our chief area of concern. I assure all Committee members that we take the matter seriously throughout Government—those responsible for the immigration service and the rest of us. In the course of its work, the immigration service and NASS encounter many children in different circumstances. They are acutely aware of the need to ensure that any vulnerable children are properly identified and referred to the appropriate agency. The concern of both NASS and the immigration service towards children in their care can be viewed through the actions that they have taken in accordance with the spirit of that duty. Both NASS and the immigration service have well-established working arrangements with local authorities and other agencies so that concerns are swiftly dealt with. 
 I shall give some examples of the improvements that have been brought about recently. We now have a single point of contact established for all local authorities and social workers who want to clarify the immigration status of a child with whom they come into contact. We have issued new instructions to case workers to ensure that they take the necessary steps to engage social services at the earliest stage in any cases 
 involving a child where there is a cause for concern. We have developed and issued best practice guidance and distributed it to all ports of entry throughout the UK on the procedures to be followed when immigration officers encounter children, especially those who may be at risk. We have developed courses and run training since November 2003 with the aim of training at least 10 per cent. of operational staff in the specialist skills required to interview children, and to ensure full-time coverage at all ports of entry. 
 We have also set up Operation Paladin, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred. We have an evaluation system that we are reviewing. Sadly, that system, whereby if the asylum seeker is unaccompanied, the immigration officer works together with a social worker at the port of entry, has not captured those children that we believe to be so much at risk and who appear in my hon. Friend's constituency, and indeed all our constituencies. We need to reflect on the workings of that system to decide whether we ought to replicate it or whether there are other ways in which we can go forward. 
 On removal centres, managers have a legal responsibility for the safety, security and well-being of all in their custody, particularly under paragraph 2(3)(d) of schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and rule 11(3) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The latter requires that: 
 ''Everything reasonably necessary for detained persons' protection, safety and well-being and the maintenance and care of infants and children shall be provided.'' 
I hope that, on what I accept is a difficult issue, hon. Members are reassured by what I have said and understand why I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept amendment. Nos. 30 and 99.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister and think that we have had a good debate on the matter. Many hon. Members have made useful points. I echo the case that was made by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole about the unquantifiability of the problem of children entering the country and the paucity of data that we have for taking account of where they go. I also take the point of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that my amendment would need to include the whole of the United Kingdom.
 The Minister has made the case that what she is trying to achieve is what we are trying to achieve without placing extra burdens on the asylum and immigration service that people might use as loopholes to exploit, and that if my amendment includes the whole of the asylum and immigration service—just by naming the chief immigration officer at ports of entry—it will not achieve what I am trying to achieve. We had a good airing of all the points that we are mindful of, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'(l) courts with the power to sentence a child to detention or remand a child in custody.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 112, in
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Youth Justice Board.'. 
No. 31, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 3, leave out from 'discharged' to 'the' in line 4 and insert 
 'in a manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and promoting'. 
No. 101, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In exercising their functions under this section courts must notify the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which the child is ordinarily resident of— 
 (a) any decision to sentence or remand a child to custody; 
 (b) any factors that could give rise to concern for the child's safety or well-being while in custody.'. 
No. 113, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales shall ensure that— 
 (a) every child referred to them by a court for placement in custody is appropriately accommodated, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote their welfare, and 
 (b) where any child is not placed in the type of custodial accommodation considered appropriate under this section a record of the reasons for, and length of, such a placement is kept, and an annual report on such cases made to the Secretary of State; 
 (c) the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which any child in custody is ordinarily resident is notified of the details of their place of custody and any changes to their place of custody.'. 
 No. 102, in 
clause 11, page 10, line 29, at end insert 
 '(1A) A Local Safeguarding Children Board established under section 10 will be responsible for monitoring the safety and well-being of children in custody.'.

Hilton Dawson: The amendment is, I believe, very important. It aims to address the scandal and disgrace of not only the huge number of children in prisons in this country—some 2,700 or 2,800—but the fact that so many of those children are so exceptionally vulnerable.
 The fact that 14-year-old Adam Rickwood died in August 2004—he was the youngest person in modern British penal history to die in custody—is a fact that we should address through the course of the Bill. We should do everything that we can to try to ensure that the situations of Adam Rickwood, Gavin Myatt, Joseph Scholes and so many other young people who have died in prison custody in recent years are not replicated. Children in trouble are invariably troubled children, and we should attack the historic distinction that has been made in this country between those two categories. 
 The amendments aim to bring the courts into the safeguarding framework, requiring them to notify local safeguarding boards of decisions to detain children in custody. They aim to bring the Youth Justice Board into the— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.